When Truth Commission Models Travel: Explaining the Norwegian Case
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
When Truth Commission Models Travel:
Explaining the Norwegian Case
Elin Skaar*
A B S T R A C T∞
This article explores ‘late justice’ in the context of settler democracies with a history of racism, using
Norway as a case study. It examines the background for the Norwegian Truth and Reconciliation Com-
mission (TRC), established by the Norwegian Parliament in 2018 to investigate the consequences of
historical and ongoing assimilation of the indigenous Sami people and two national minorities. I argue
that although the Norwegian TRC was established in direct response to an initiative from the Sami Par-
liament, its successful creation was a result of political negotiations involving a series of actors, including
Sami activists, mainstream politicians and various interest organizations. The protagonists pushing for
a truth commission were in turn encouraged and inspired by a global focus on transitional justice, truth
commissions and indigenous rights. Based on a desk study, interviews and media reports, and apply-
ing a theoretical framework emphasizing agency and norm diffusion, I argue that while the Norwegian
TRC has explicitly used truth commissions elsewhere in the world – particularly the Canadian TRC –
as models, it is quite unique in terms of mandate and design.
KEYWORDS: Indigenous rights, Norway, reconciliation, Sami, truth commissions
IN TRODUCTION1
Norway is one of the wealthiest and most egalitarian societies in the word. It has a self-perception
and international reputation as a peace negotiator and protagonist for human rights. It therefore
came as a surprise to many when in September 2018, the Norwegian Parliament established
a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter the TRC)2 to investigate a long history of
∞ I warmly thank the editors of the International Journal of Transitional Justice, three anonymous reviewers, as well as
colleagues in the Rights & Gender research group at the CMI for valuable feedback and constructive comments on earlier
drafts. I would also like to thank my informants interviewed in Norway between April 2021 and April 2022 for their time
and help
* Elin Skaar, Research Professor, Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI), Bergen, Norway. Email: elin.skaar@cmi.no
1 This article forms part of the TRUCOM research project (financed by the SAMEFORSK programme of the Norwegian
Research Council, 2020–23, #302041), which is a collaboration between the Arctic University of Norway and the Chr. Michelsen
Institute in Bergen, Norway. See the CMI TRUCOM page at https://www.cmi.no/projects/2521-truth-and-reconciliation-in-a-
democratic-welfare-state-the-indigenous-sami-and-the-kven (accessed 15 may 2022).
2 Original Norwegian name: ‘Kommisjonen for å granske fornorskingspolitikk og urett overfor samer, kvener og norskfinner’
(Sannhets- og forsoningskommisjonen). See https://www.Sannhets- og forsoningskommisjonen - stortinget.no (accessed 15
May 2022). English translation ‘The Commission to Investigate the Norwegianisation Policy and Injustice Against the Sámi
and Kven/Norwegian Finnish Peoples’ (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission). A third minority group, the Forest Finns
(Skogfinnene), were later included in the mandate.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com2 • Skaar
repressive state policies towards the Indigenous Sami and two national minorities (the Kven and
Norwegian Finns), the repercussions of which are still felt today. The Norwegian TRC is a late-
comer in the global universe of truth commissions, but it is, nevertheless, only fourth in the small
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
but emerging group of non-transitional national commissions established in western democratic
states to investigate historical wrongs exercised by states against their own indigenous popu-
lations, after Australia, Canada and Greenland. Similar TRCs have since been established in
Finland (October 2021) and Sweden (November 2021). The Norwegian TRC thus forms part
of a new trend in the empirical universe of truth commissions, raising important theoretical
questions regarding why and how such commissions have come about, and how they fit into the
transitional justice framework, which has post-authoritarian and post-civil war contexts as its
chief domaines.
This article addresses the following puzzle: Over the past four decades, the Sami in Norway
have moved from a position of political marginalization to one of political empowerment. Sami
rights have been strengthened in many areas. The popularly elected Sami Parliament has a con-
sultation agreement with the Norwegian Government; legislation comprising Sami rights in
different fields has been adopted; and the King has offered a public apology to the Sami for past
policies. Likewise, the Kven and Norwegian Finns (that is, people of Finnish descent in North-
ern Norway) have gained status as national minorities and have seen a linguistic and cultural
revival in recent years. Why and how, then, has a truth commission been established in Norway
now, long after the Norwegian state formally abandoned its assimilation policies and moved on
to effectuate a range of efforts of reconciliation between the Sami and the Kven on the one hand,
and the Norwegian state and the majority population on the other?
From a majority perspective, the state has already discontinued its harmful practices, as
narrowly defined by official assimilation policies, and made amendments for these historical
wrongdoings. From a Sami and Kven perspective, however, assimilation policies are not only
historical; they are still ongoing. This is reflected also in the Norwegian TRC’s mandate. The
purpose of its investigation is:
to lay the groundwork for the recognition of the experiences of the Sámi and Kven/Norwegian
Finns while this policy was being enforced by the Norwegian authorities, and the consequences
these experiences have had for them as groups and individuals. The aim is to establish a common
understanding of how Norwegian authorities and society treated the entirety or parts of the
Kven and Sámi population and their culture.
The TRC will do so by carrying out a historical mapping, investigating the impacts of the
Norwegianization policy today and proposing measures for reconciliation.3
Although the lingering grievances of the Sami, Kven and Norwegian Finns and the need/desire
for a truth commission can clearly be explained from a settler colonial perspective, this scholarly
literature, in my opinion, has to date not come up with convincing theoretical explanations for
how grievances translate action and push for a truth commission. To answer the question of how
the Norwegian TRC actually came about, I therefore explore the following sub-questions: (1)
Where did the initiative to establish a truth commission initially come from? (2) Which actors
were involved? (3) What was the process shaping the mandate and composition of the TRC?
When exploring these questions, I situate the Norwegian TRC in a global transitional justice
context and assess the importance of potential role models, particularly that of the Canadian
TRC.
3 See the TRC’s home page: https://uit.no/kommisjonen/mandat_en (accessed 15 May 2022).When Truth Commission Models Travel • 3
The article is based on a combination of desk study, semi-structured qualitative interviews
with central actors involved in the TRC process, government documents, and media reports.
Applying a theoretical framework emphasizing agency and norm diffusion, and using process
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
tracing, I argue that, although established in direct response to an initiative from the Norwe-
gian Sami Parliament demanding recognition of historic cultural and economic repression, the
successful creation of the TRC was a result of political negotiations involving a series of actors,
including Sami activists, mainstream politicians and various interest organizations. The protag-
onists pushing for a truth commission were in turn encouraged and inspired by a global focus on
transitional justice, truth commissions and indigenous rights. While openly seeking inspiration
both from truth commissions in the global south and indigenous commissions established in
the global north, the Norwegian TRC is first and foremost adopted to the Nordic context and
border-crossing challenges facing indigenous people.
This article is divided into seven parts. Following this general introduction, the next part
gives a brief overview of historical repression against the Sami, Kven and Norwegian Finns; the
grassroots mobilization against repressive policies; and the Norwegian state’s attempts at recon-
ciliation. Part three situates the Norwegian TRC in a larger global transitional justice context.
The fourth part outlines a framework for understanding when and why truth commissions are
established in non-transitional contexts, emphasizing the role of various actors and the diffusion
of transitional justice norms. Part five provides a brief historical background to the Norwegian
commission, showing how its establishment is a product of opposing interests and political
compromises between various sectors of Norwegian society. The sixth part analyses the models
inspiring the Norwegian TRC’s design, mandate and composition. In the conclusions I suggest
that the Norwegian TRC may very well be constituting an emerging Nordic TRC model.
R EPR E SSION, R E SISTA N CE A ND R EPA R ATIONS
To understand the demands for a truth and reconciliation commission in Norway, and the Nor-
wegian states’ positive, albeit politically split, response to this demand, we need to take a brief
glance at the history laying the foundations for the grievances that led to demands for truth and
reconciliation.
Assimilation Policies: `Norwegianization'
‘Norwegianization,’ a formal state assimilation policy, was adopted in the 1850s, was at its peak
before the Second World War and was formally abolished in the late 1950s.4 The core of this
policy was to make the indigenous Sami and minority groups, such as the Kven and the Norwe-
gian Finns, into ‘true’ Norwegians; that is, to make them use the Norwegian language, assimilate
into Norwegian culture and live as Norwegians. Common for these groups is that they are cross-
border peoples, sharing language, culture and ways of life across the borders of four nation states.
The Sami are an Indigenous people whose culture is based on hunting, fishing, gathering and
reindeer herding. There are an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 Sami in the Arctic regions of Fin-
land, Sweden, Norway and western Russia – the Sami homeland collectively referred to as Sápmi.
The Kven or Norwegian Finns denominate a group of people who have lived in Nordkalotten
(i.e., the northern areas of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia) since ‘times immemorable.’5
Due to the loss of language and culture, there are no reliable figures of how many people are
4 See Henry Minde, ‘Språk, etnisitet og fornorskning i nord fram til 1940. Utredning om tapt skolegang. Rapport fra et arbeidsutvalg
vedr. samersom har tapt skolegang under 2. verdenskrig’. Kommunal- og arbeidsdepartementet (1993), and ‘Assimilation of the Sami-
Implementation and Consequences,’ Gáldu Cála, ̌ Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights 20(2) (2003): 121–146.
5 I follow the official term Kven / Norwegian Finns, adopted by the Norwegian Parliament in 2011. See official note
on ‘Kvener/Norskfinner’ at https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/laringsmiljo/nasjonale-minoriteter/nasjonale_minoriteter_
kvener_norskfinner.pdf (accessed 22 March 2019).4 • Skaar
Kven or Norwegian Finns. Although the Norwegianization policy was directed at, and similarly
negatively affected, these different groups of people, there are still some important historical
differences.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
The Sami were viewed as inferior, and the Norwegianization process was thus portrayed as
a civilizing task.6 By contrast, the Kven and Norwegian Finns were regarded as a cultured peo-
ple, but who had to be Norwegianized due to security policy considerations. This was often
referred to as ‘The Finnish Threat’ (Den finske fare) in the first half of the 20th century, when
Finland was considered a security threat to Northern Norway.7 State repression of the Sami,
Kven and Norwegian Finns infiltrated all areas of Norwegian society, particularly language
and the deprivation of Sami land rights.8 Assimilation was justified through the argument of
increased inclusion of the Sami, Kven and Norwegian Finns in the Norwegian public welfare sys-
tem. Although the Norwegian state officially abandoned its policy of forced assimilation almost
70 years ago, the lingering effects on contemporary political, social and economic structures
remain.
Resistance
As a result of Norwegianization and repressive policies, many individual Sami, Kven and Nor-
wegian Finns – even entire communities – have lost their language and the connection to
their cultures. However, issues related to Sami, Kven and Norwegian Finns traditions and
identities have motivated rights mobilization among these communities, across the Nordic
countries.9 Mobilization against the Norwegian state assimilation policy has been different
between the two groups. The Sami started fighting for their rights and political representation
at the start of the 19th century, intensifying through the 1960s and 1970s.10 By contrast, the
Kven and Norwegian Finns mobilized much later and formed their first interest organizations
in the 1980s. Importantly, there have been different responses from different Sami commu-
nities. While the Alta uprising in the 1970s drew international attention when Sami reindeer
herders protested against the Norwegian state destroying one of the largest rivers in Norway,
the Sami fisher population / coastal Sami population carried out less verbal, though important,
resistance.11
Reparations
The frustrations expressed by Sami, Kven and Norwegian Finns gradually gained resonance
withing the Norwegian state. The state started to respond with a series of acts which within
the transitional justice literature are commonly referred to as reparations.12 Sami political rights
were acknowledged through the establishment of the Sami Parliament in 1989. Although this is
a consultative body, it has been an important arena for political issues and has helped to front
Sami political, economic and cultural issues also at the national level.13 The Sami were officially
6 See, for example, Cathrine Baglo, ‘På Ville Veger? Levende Utstillinger av Samer i Europa og Amerika’ (PhD diss., University
of Tromsø, 2011); Bjørg Evjen, Teemu Sakari Ryymin and Astri Andresen, eds., Samenes Historie fra 1751 til 2010, vol. II (Oslo:
Cappelen Damm Akademisk, 2021); Hugo Lauritz Jenssen, En Samisk Verdenshistorie – Hvordan et Arktisk Urfolk Erobret Verden,
Kolliderte med Rasismen og Blandet Blod med Kapitalismen (Oslo: Cappelen Damm, 2019).
7 See Knut Einar Eriksen and Einar Niemi, Den Finske Fare: Sikkerhetsproblemer og Minoritetspolitikk i Nord 1860–1940
(Universitetsforlaget, 1981); Minde, supra n 4.
8 Henry Minde, ‘Sami Land Rights in Norway: A Test Case for Indigenous Peoples,’ International Journal on Minority and Group
Rights 8(2) (2001): 107–125.
9 See Ragnar Nilsen, ‘From Norwegianization to Coastal Sami Uprising,’ in Indigenous Peoples: Resource Management and
Global Rights, ed. Svein Jentoft, Henry Minde and Ragnar Nilsen ( Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers, 2013), 163.
10 Evjen, Ryymin and Andresen, supra n 6.
11 Nilsen, supra n 9.
12 Pablo de Greiff, ‘Repairing the Past: Compensation for Victims of Human Rights Violations,’ in The Handbook of Reparations,
ed. Pablo De Greiff (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 1–20.
13 See Torvald Falch, Per Selle and Kristin Strømsnes, ‘The Sámi: 25 Years of Indigenous Authority in Norway,’ Ethnopoli-
tics 15(1) (2016): 125–143; Eva Josefsen, ‘The Sami and the National Parliaments. Direct and Indirect Channels of Influence,’When Truth Commission Models Travel • 5
granted status as indigenous people according to international law after Norway in 1990 ratified
the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989. A public apology was offered to the
Sami by King Harald on behalf of the state in 1997. This apology falls in line with a series of pub-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
lic apologies for past wrongs issued by heads of state across the world.14 In 2000, the Norwegian
Parliament allocated a Sami Peoples’ Fund (Samefolkets fond) to collectively compensate for the
damage the Norwegianization policy had inflicted on the Sami people.15
The Kven have not been offered reparations in the same way. However, the Norwegian state
in 1998 granted the Kven the status of a national minority, as one of five minority groups who all
have been subject to racism and assimilation policies.16 The Kven language was given the status
of its own language in 2005, and Norwegian-Finns were officially accepted in the same way as
Kven in 2011.17 However, despite these multiple efforts at correcting past wrongs, there has
been a widespread perception among Sami as well as among Kven that the reconciliation job is
not yet done.18
Lingering Consequences of the Norwegianization Policy
‘As an indigenous people, the Sami have been exposed to discrimination and prejudice as the
consequences of colonization and forced assimilation.’19 The loss of language and culture is
deeply mourned and the subject of daily debate, principally in the north of Norway. Studies
show that suicide rates among Sami were on the rise in the 1970s to 1980s; that violence against
women is more widespread in Sami communities than in the mainstream populations; and that
the prevalence of psychological distress and its association with ethnic discrimination is higher
among Sami and Kven than ethnic Norwegians.20 A report released by the Norwegian Insti-
tute for Human Rights in July 2022 documents that Sami are still disproportionally subject to
racism and hate speech.21 With respect to the indigenous right to their lands and to exercise one’s
own culture, the clashes between Sami traditional ways of reindeer herding and the state’s access
to natural resources (like mining and wind craft) have resulted in bitter struggles between the
Sami and the Norwegian State.22 In a 2021 judgement regarding the establishment of a wind-
mill park in a reindeer-herding area, the Norwegian Supreme Court for the first time in history
sided with the Sami claimant on the indigenous right to land. Many will therefore rightly argue
that although the formal policy of Norwegianization ended almost half a century ago, the many-
faceted negative consequences of these policies are still deeply felt today. But why establish a
truth commission?
in Challenging Politics: Indigenous Peoples’ Experiences with Political Parties and Elections, ed. Kathrin Wessendorf (Copenhagen:
International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), 2001), 64–93.
14 Danielle Celermajer, The Sins of the Nation and the Ritual of Apologies, vol. 72 (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2009); Mark Gibney, Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann, Jean-Marc Coicaud, Niklaus Steiner, The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past
(University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008).
15 Minde, supra n 4 at 6.
16 The other four groups are Jews, Roma, Romani/Gypsies and Forest Finns. Norway has ratified the Council of Europe’s Frame-
work Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (see Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
(coe.int)) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The latter is the European convention for the protection
and promotion of languages used by traditional minorities (coe.int) (accessed 15 September 2021). See also Norway’s fifth report,
including for the first time reporting on Kven matters: 16809f9f59 (coe.int) (accessed 2 January 2023).
17 See Kvensk/norskfinsk historie | Varanger museum (accessed 15 September 2021).
18 For a list of demands regarding language and culture issued by the Norwegian Kven Association, see Kven language and
culture (En) - Norske kveners forbund (accessed 15 September 2021).
19 Ketil Lenert Hansen and Tore Sørlie, ‘Ethnic Discrimination and Psychological Distress: A Study of Sami and Non-Sami
Populations in Norway,’ Transcultural Psychiatry 49(1) (2012): 26–50.
20 For studies on suicide rates, see A. Silviken, Tor Haldorsen and Siv Kvernmo, ‘Suicide among Indigenous Sami in Arctic
Norway, 1970–1998,’ European Journal of Epidemiology 21(9) (2006). For violence against Sami women, see Astrid Margrethe
Anette Eriksen, ‘Omfang Av Vold Og Seksuelle Overgrep Blant Samer Og Ikke-Samer,’ in Vold I Nære Relasjoner I Et Mangfoldig
Norge, ed. H. Eggebø and A. M. A. Eriksen I A. Bredal (Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, 2020). For ethnic discrimination, see
Hansen and Sørlie, supra n 19.
21 Norges institusjon for menneskerettigheter (NIM), ‘Holdninger Til Samer Og Nasjonale Minoriteter I Norge’ (Oslo: NIM,
2022).
22 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Articles 29 and 31.6 • Skaar
PL ACIN G THE N ORWEGI A N TRC IN A GLOBA L TR A NSITION A L
JUSTICE CON TE X T
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
Some of the big questions – empirical as well as theoretical – in the scholarly field of transitional
justice are, why do states engage in transitional justice? When do they engage in transitional jus-
tice? What kind of transitional justice do they opt for? And why is transitional justice pursued
expeditiously in come contexts, while it is delayed in others? To understand why Norway opted
for a truth commission in 2018, it may be useful to take a brief glance at the purpose of truth
commissions and where, why and when they have occurred historically.
The main transitional justice literature has focused on how to address human rights viola-
tions committed by former regimes after either (liberal) political transitions or the end of civil
war or internal armed conflict as part of peacebuilding processes. The so-called transitional jus-
tice ‘toolbox’ has greatly expanded over the years, and the definitions of what transitional justice
is have been significantly broadened from a narrow understanding of transitional justice as prin-
cipally criminal justice/accountability to a much broader one involving a range of institutional
and non-institutional mechanisms.23
Truth commissions have had a central place in the transitional justice ‘toolbox’ since it evolved
as a mechanism to pursue restorative (rather than criminal) justice in in the early 1980s during
what Ruti Teitel refers to as ‘the second phase’ of transitional justice.24 While the first three tran-
sitional justice phases have taken place in contexts of political transition and/or peacemaking, a
fourth phase of transitional justice is currently unfolding, namely in contexts of non-transition.
Although some scholars are reluctant to expand the realm of transitional justice beyond contexts
of political transition, effectuating transitional justice in non-transitional contexts is increas-
ingly recognized as a well-established practice.25 This means that models of transitional justice
mechanisms, developed to address specific harms committed in contexts of political transition
and/or peacebuilding, are now being adopted and employed in new contexts, potentially with
new impacts and consequences.
Truth commissions have as of late been set up in well-established democracies to address
historical wrongs. I will for practical purposes call these non-transitional truth commissions. They
fulfill the formal definitions and, at least partly, the core purposes of truth commissions.26 Yet,
they share some characteristics that make them quite distinct from other truth commissions on
at least five dimensions: context, violations, victims, perpetrators and recommendations.
First, non-transitional commissions are established in well-established western democracies,
rather than in post-authoritarian or postconflict settings. Hence, there has been no political tran-
sition.27 This means that non-transitional commissions are not primarily set up to achieve many
23 See Ruti Teitel, ‘Transitional Justice Genealogy,’ Harvard Human Rights Journal 16(Spring) (2003), versus
OHCHR, ‘Transitional Justice and Human Rights,’ OHCHR, https://www.ohchr.org/en/transitional-justice#:∼:text=
Transitional%20justice%20covers%20the%20full,S%2F2004%2F616 (accessed 2 January 2023). The transitional justice concept
has been broadened further to focus on bottom-up approaches to transitional justice and expand the range of actors involved. See,
for example, Wendy Lambourne, ‘Transformative Justice, Reconciliation and Peacebuilding,’ in Transitional Justice Theories, ed.
Suzanne Buckley-Zistel, Teresa Coloma Beck, Christian Braun, and Friederike Mieth (London and New York: Routledge, 2014);
Rosalind Shaw and Lars Waldorf with Pierre Hazan, eds., Localizing Transitional Justice: Justice Interventions and Priorities after Mass
Violence (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010).
24 Teitel, supra n 23.
25 Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm, ‘Truth Commissions in Non-Transitional Contexts: Implications for Their Impact and Legacy,’ in
The Legacies of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, ed. Jeremy Sarkin (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2019).
26 Three widely used definitions of truth commission include those launched by Priscilla B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Tran-
sitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions (London and New York: Routledge (2nd edn.), 2011); Mark Freeman,
Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006); and Onur Bakiner, Truth Commissions:
Memory, Power, and Legitimacy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016).
27 Note that truth commissions have also been employed in other non-transitional contexts, such as in postconflict scenarios
with no regime change (Sri Lanka) and in authoritarian regimes for political purposes (Bahrain and Morocco). See Eric Wiebelhaus-
Brahm, ‘Global Transitional Justice Norms and the Framing of Truth Commissions in the Absence of Transition,’ Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research 14(3) (2020): 170–186: 249. The motivations for establishing truth commissions in these contextsWhen Truth Commission Models Travel • 7
of the broader societal goals traditionally associated with truth commissions in transitional set-
tings, such as contributing to peace, building the rule of law, reinforcing trust in democratic
institutions etc. Rather, non-transitional truth commissions typically have a much narrower
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
societal goal: reconciliation.
Second, non-transitional commissions are tasked specifically with addressing historical repres-
sion rather than violations committed during a particular authoritarian, non-democratic regime,
or a civil war. This has several implications: (i) The main violations have usually taken place in the
distant past – many decades, sometimes even centuries, before the commission is established.
(ii) From the perspective of settler colonialism, though, these grievances may be ongoing.28
(iii) Regardless of the perspective of past or ongoing grievances, or both, the mandate period
of non-transitional truth commissions typically covers a much broader time period than transi-
tional and post-transitional truth commissions. Although these non-transitional commissions
may qualify as what is typically called ‘late justice’ in the mainstream transitional justice lit-
erature, they are not part of what is called post-transitional justice, which requires a political
transition.29 Notably, post-transitional justice is not uncommon, whether narrowly defined as
one electoral cycle or more after the transition, or more broadly defined as the pursuit of justice
some time after the transition.30 Two classic examples of post-transitional justice from Latin
America include Brazil’s truth and reconciliation commission and the ongoing mega-trials for
dictatorship crimes in Argentina.31
Third, these non-transitional commissions focus exclusively on the violations carried out
against indigenous populations or minority populations/groups. This makes them different from
truth commissions established after military authoritarianism or internal armed conflict, which
may partially, directly or indirectly, examine violations committed against indigenous people
as part of a wider internal armed conflict (like in Guatemala, El Salvador, Ecuador or Peru) or
during a military dictatorship (like in Chile), both in mandate and purpose. Importantly, the
types of violations suffered by indigenous people in these very different contexts tend to be of a
different character.
Fourth, and closely related to the foregoing point, non-transitional commissions typically
investigate wholly or in part different types of human rights violations, committed not by the
military or the police or armed opposition groups, but by bureaucrats or employees working in or
on behalf of the state in seasoned democratic countries. This implies that non-transitional com-
missions are not tasked with collecting evidence of human rights violations that can identify
individual wrong-doers and thus seen as a first step to facilitate prosecutions (like in Argentina)
or a supplement to criminal justice. Rather, they are more focused on repressive structures and
policies carried out by the state over often extensive periods of time.
Finally, given the differences on the four dimensions elaborated above, we may expect the
recommendations made by non-transitional commissions to be quite distinct both in purpose and
content from recommendations made by commissions set up after (or during, as in Colombia)
are, I argue, sufficiently distinct from truth commissions investigating historical repression in well-established democracies so as
not to include them in the category of non-transitional commissions that I use here.
28 Rauna Kuokkanen, ‘Reconciliation as a Threat or Structural Change? The Truth and Reconciliation Process and Settler Colo-
nial Policy Making in Finland,’ Human Rights Review 21 (2020): 293–312; Lorenzo Veracini, ‘Settler Colonialism,’ The Palgrave
Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism, ed. I. and Z. Cope Ness, vol. 10 (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
29 Cath Collins, ‘The End of Impunity? “Late Justice” and Post-Transitional Prosecutions in Latin America,’ in Critical Perspec-
tives in Transitional Justice, ed. Nicola Palmer, Phil Clark and Danielle Granville (Cambridge, Antwerp and Portland: Intersentia,
2012).
30 For different conceptualizations and definitions of post-transitional justice, see Elin Skaar, Judicial Independence and
Human Rights in Latin-America: Violations, Politics and Prosecution (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) and Cath Collins,
Post-Transitional Justice: Human Rights Trials in Chile and El Salvador (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010).
31 See Marcelo Torelly, ‘A ssessing a Late Truth Commission: Challenges and Achievements of the Brazilian National Truth
Commission,’ International Journal of Transitional Justice 12(2) (2018): 194–215, and Francesca Lessa, The Condor Trials:
Transnational Repression and Human Rights in South America (Yale University Press, 2022).8 • Skaar
conflict. Since most non-transitional truth commissions have not yet completed their work, this
remains to be empirically investigated.
While the vast bulk of scholarly literature on truth commissions focuses on the establish-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
ment, work and impact of truth commissions in transitional and post-transitional contexts,
there is an embryonic but growing literature on truth commissions in non-transitional contexts,
specifically on those established in western democracies with a narrow focus on violations of
indigenous rights. Most of this recent scholarly attention has been lavished on non-transitional
truth commissions that have finalized their work and published a final report: Australia, Canada
and Greenland.32 Reflections have been published on commissions that are in the process of
being established, such as those of Finland and Sweden, and the recently established commis-
sion in Norway, whose work is still ongoing at the moment of writing.33 Many of these case
studies are chiefly empirical in character and are framed within the literature on settler colonial-
ism.34 These studies have typically been linked to scholarly fields of indigenous rights and/or
to the (vast) reconciliation literature. They offer descriptive accounts of the truth commissions
rather than providing theoretical explanations for why truth commissions appear in these new
non-transitional contexts.
So far, there is very little systematic comparative analysis of this new type of truth commis-
sion, though there are a couple of notable exceptions. Comparative work on truth commissions
in the Nordic countries has just started and is still scarce.35 There have been scholarly attempts
at cross-comparative analysis of non-transitional truth commissions and the more traditional
type of truth commission, such as comparing the Canadian TCR to the more well-known South
African Truth and Reconciliation Commission; or the truth commissions efforts addressing
violations against indigenous people in non-transitional versus post-armed conflict settings.
A recent edited volume compares the truth commissions in South Africa, Canada and Nor-
way.36 The literature on these truth-finding newcomers is often linked to the topic of apologies,
education or reconciliation.
In short, the idea and praxis of truth commissions have in recent years been extended to con-
texts we normally associate with stable democracies and high degrees of inclusion and rights
32 For case studies, see, for example, Damien Short, ‘Reconciliation, Assimilation, and the Indigenous Peoples of Australia,’
International Political Science Review 24(4) (2003): 491–513; Ravi de Costa, ‘Discursive Institutions in Non-Transitional Societies:
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada,’ International Political Science Review 38(2) (2017): 185–199; Margery Fee,
‘The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada,’ Canadian Literature 215 (2012): 6–10; Rosemary Nagy, ‘The Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Genesis and Design,’ Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et
Société 29 (2014): 199–217; Ronald Niezen, Truth and Indignation: Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Resi-
dential Schools (North York: University of Toronto Press, 2017); Kim Stanton, ‘Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission:
Settling the Past?’ International Indigenous Policy Journal 2(3) (2011); Kirsten Thisted, ‘The Greenlandic Reconciliation Com-
mission: Ethnonationalism, Arctic Resources, and Post-Colonial Identity,’ in Arctic Environmental Modernities (Springer, 2017):
231–246.
33 Reflections on recently established commissions are made by Kuokkanen, supra n 28; Norlin Bjorn ̈ and David Sjogren,
̈
‘Educational History in the Age of Apology: The Church of Sweden’s “White Book” on Historical Relations to the Sami, the
Significance of Education and Scientific Complexities in Reconciling the Past,’ Educare-Vetenskapliga skrifter (1) (2019): 69–95;
and Sidsel Saugestad, ‘Sannhetskommisjoner. Om Institusjonalisert Kunnskap, Kritisk Distanse Og Andre Antropologiske Utfor-
dringer,’ Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift 30(1) (2019): 7–19. See also Tore Johnsen, ‘Negotiating the Meaning of “TRC” in the
Norwegian Context,’ ed. S. Guðmarsdottir, ́ P. Regan, D. Solomons, E. Baron, S. Henkeman, T. Johnsen, J. Klaasen, S. Lightfoot, D.
Lindmark, D. MacDonald, Trading Justice for Peace? Reframing Reconciliation in TRC Processes in South Africa, Canada and Nordic
Countries (Cape Town: AOSIS Publishing, 2021), 19–40.
34 For case studies on truth commissions drawing on settler colonialism, see Kuokkanen, supra n 28; Saugestad, supra n 33;
and Thisted, supra n 32.
35 For emerging comparative work on indigenous truth commissions, see Julie Cassidy, ‘The Stolen Generations-Canada and
Australia: The Legacy of Assimilation,’ Deakin Law Review 11(1) (2006): 131–177 and Agnieszka Szpak and Dawid Bunikowski,
‘Saami Truth and Reconciliation Commissions,’ The International Journal of Human Rights (2021).
36 For studies comparing indigenous truth commissions and more traditional truth commissions, see Rosemary Nagy, ‘Truth,
Reconciliation and Settler Denial: Specifying the Canada–South Africa Analogy,’ Human Rights Review 13(3) (2012); Jeff Corn-
tassel and Cindy Holder, ‘Who’s Sorry Now? Government Apologies, Truth Commissions, and Indigenous Self-Determination
in Australia, Canada, Guatemala, and Peru,’ Human Rights Review 9(4) (2008); and Sigríður Guðmarsdottir, ́ Paulette Regan,
Demaine Solomons, Eugene Baron, Stanley Henkeman, Tore Johnsen, John Klaasen, Sheryl Lightfoot, Daniel Lindmark, David B
MacDonald, eds., Trading Justice for Peace? Reframing Reconciliation in TRC Processes in South Africa, Canada and Nordic Countries
(Cape Town: AOSIS Books, 2021).When Truth Commission Models Travel • 9
protection. The core feature of these non-transitional truth commissions is that they focus
exclusively on indigenous populations or minority populations/groups. How do we explain why and
how they have come about?
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
TRU TH COM M ISSION M ODELS A ND N OR M DIFFUSION
Key explanations for the occurrence of truth commissions after political transition include the
political power balance between the old and new regime; the relevance of domestic advocacy
groups and international actors; and norm diffusion.37 Empirical evidence supports the rel-
evance of norm diffusion, domestic advocacy groups and international actors.38 Convincing
arguments have been made for the development of a truth commission norm, propelled by
the South African TRC.39 It is argued that truth commissions may be created with growing fre-
quency ‘because of a normative consensus that they are beneficial and appropriate.’40 Are these
theories and findings relevant for non-transitional contexts? If so, what explains the uptake of
such global truth commission norms?
The establishment of truth commissions in non-transitional contexts is of relative recent ori-
gin and consequently under-theorized. While much of the seminal research on recent truth com-
missions addressing historical wrongs committed against indigenous people typically frames its
analysis in the literatures on settlement and colonialism, these studies focus mainly on the harms
themselves, are largely descriptive and typically do not offer much in terms of theoretical or
empirical explanations for when and how grievances connected to historical injustices/harm
translate into action that leads to the establishment of truth commissions. A notable exception
is Kuokkanen’s detailed study of the background for a TRC in Finland. Kuokkanen, a highly
respected Sami scholar, carefully traces the actors and factors that lead to the TRC’s estab-
lishment. However, as her main undertaking is to use settler colonial theory to explain how
reconciliation, although seemingly progressive, signifies a continuation of colonialism in Fin-
land, she too fails to present an analytical or explanatory framework for understanding the TRC’s
genesis.41 In a modest attempt to start amending this knowledge gap, I find it useful to draw
on two literatures, namely the broader transitional justice literature and theories of norm diffu-
sion, when proposing a theoretical framework for explaining late justice truth commissions in
well-established democracies trying to come to grips with historical wrongs.
There are two main issues at stake: power struggles and norm diffusion. While the balance
of power between incoming (more democratic) and outgoing regimes (responsible for human
rights violations) is not an issue in contexts with no regime transition, other forms of political
struggle over whether or not to establish truth commissions are still likely to take place. To sys-
tematize our thinking around transitional justice actors and their strategies, I here find it useful to
draw on a theoretical framework developed by Skaar and Wiebelhaus-Brahm, which privileges
37 There is a large literature on each of these explanations. On the balance of power, see, for example, David Pion-Berlin and
Craig Arceneaux, ‘Tipping the Civil-Military Balance: Institutions and Human Rights Policy in Democratic Argentina and Chile,’
Comparative Political Studies 31(5) (1998); Elin Skaar, ‘Truth Commissions, Trials – or Nothing? Policy Options in Democratic
Transitions,’ Third World Quarterly 20(6) (1999); José Zalaquett, ‘Balancing Ethical Imperatives and Political Constraints: The
Dilemma of New Democracies Confronting Past Human Rights Violations,’ Hastings Law Journal 42(6) (1992). For international
actors, see Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca
and London: Cornell University Press, 1998). For norm diffusions, see Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch, ‘Agents of Truth and Justice:
Truth Commissions and the Transitional Justice Epistemic Community,’ in Rethinking Ethical Foreign Policy: Pitfalls, Possibilities
and Paradoxes, ed. David Chandler and Volker Heins (New York: Routledge, 2007); ‘Ideational Change and the Emergence of the
International Norm of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions,’ European Journal of International Relations 20(3) (2014).
38 Hun Joon Kim, ‘Why Do States Adopt Truth Commissions after Transition?’ Social Science Quarterly 100(5) (2019):
1485–1502.
39 Hirsch, supra n 37.
40 Wiebelhaus-Brahm, supra n 25 at 251.
41 See Kuokkanen, supra n 28.10 • Skaar
agency as the focal point of analysis and where the main task is to conceptualize ways in which
actors promote, or obstruct, transitional justice.42
This multi-level framework focuses on how diverse actors employ their various capabilities
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
(defined as the kind of power and resources that they command, for example economic or nor-
mative) and are affected by values as well as interests when advancing their transitional justice
preferences. The four-step framework (1) identifies relevant actors; (2) examines their prefer-
ences, capabilities and norms; (3) identifies important aspects of the environmental constraints
under which they operate; and (4) observes changes longitudinally. A central premise in this
framework is that actors’ preferences, capabilities and norms are in part shaped by – and also
actively shape – the national and global environment in which they operate. Importantly, today’s
global legal and normative environment is highly supportive of transitional justice; a devel-
opment referred to as ‘the justice cascade.’43 It has not always been that way. Global norms
supporting transitional justice, we know, have changed over time. The timing of transitional jus-
tice processes is therefore crucial when explaining the interaction between actors’ preferences
and the absence/presence of transitional justice norms and debates, both at the national and
international levels.
Empirical analysis should pay attention to two types of time: ‘national time’ and ‘world time.’
‘National time’ refers to the changes that arise in the context of unfolding conflict dynamics, and
efforts to promote peace and democratization processes (or, as in the context of this article: truth
and reconciliation processes) within the country in question. ‘World time’ here denotes the
historical period in which the given conflict either ended or was in the process of ending. Specif-
ically, ‘world time’ which transitional justice is initiated in matters in several ways, including
the role of the then-prevailing global political context (such as before, during and after the Cold
War); particular institutional contexts (such as the existence of regional or international courts);
and a prevailing global ideological and normative human rights climate (as reflected in legal
frameworks and normative debates). In a nutshell, ‘world time’ represents the complex global
environment in which transitional justice initiatives are framed, promoted or obstructed.44 For
the purposes of this article, ‘world time’ is particularly important for capturing changes in the
global ideological and normative human rights climate, as well as for the development of new
legal frameworks and institutions.
As documented in the previous section, truth commissions are an international practice
that has gradually gained traction over decades. How do truth commission ideas and models
travel, then? Dolowitz and Marsh emphasize diffusion as a process, as opposed to an outcome
development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political
system.45 According to Fabrizio Gilardi, norm diffusion does not occur only at the international
level, nor are national governments the only relevant units; and it is not only specific policies
that diffuse.46 Diffusion can take place also within countries, among a wide range of public and
private actors, and it can lead to the spread of all kinds of things, from specific instruments, stan-
dards and institutions, both public and private, to broad policy models, ideational frameworks
and institutional settings. Gilardi identifies four different ways in which diffusions may occur:
42 Elin Skaar and Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm, ‘The Drivers of Transitional Justice: An Analytical Framework for Assessing the
Role of Actors,’ Nordic Journal of Human Rights 31(2) (2013): 127–148. Although this framework was developed to explain the
emergence of different kinds of transitional justice mechanisms in contexts of systematic grave human rights violations committed
in non-democratic contexts, the essence of the argument can also be applied to or tested in non-transitional settings.
43 Ellen Lutz and Kathryn Sikkink, ‘The Justice Cascade: The Evolution and Impact of Foreign Human Rights Trials,’ Chicago
Journal of International Law 2(1) (2001): 1–33.
44 Skaar and Wiebelhaus-Brahm, supra n 42.
45 David P. Dolowitz and David Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policymaking,’
Governance 13(1) (2000): 5–23.
46 Fabrizio Gilardi, ‘Transnational Diffusion: Norms, Ideas, and Policies,’ in Handbook of International Relations, ed. Thomas
Risse Walter Carlsnaes and Beth Simmons (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2012), 2–3.When Truth Commission Models Travel • 11
by coercion, competition, learning and emulation.47 For the purposes of the argument made in
this article, norm diffusion with respect to truth commissions has mainly taken place through
the process of learning. Combining the actor-focused framework in the global context of con-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
cern with indigenous rights and the spread of truth commission norms, the next section tries to
trace how the process of learning and uptake of global human rights norms has played out in the
Norwegian case.
Methodology
For the empirical analysis, I use a combination of desk study, semi-structured qualitative inter-
views, government documents and media reports issued before and after the establishment of
the TRC. I have conducted around 15 semi-structured in-depth interviews between April 2021
and April 2022 with Sami politicians, national politicians, bureaucrats, academics and people
holding central positions in Sami and Kven interest organizations for this article. The informants
were selected for their involvement as central actors in the TRC process, from the government
side, the Sami political side, in the consultation process and political negotiations that resulted in
the establishment of the TRC. To ensure different perspectives from interest groups on the pro-
cess leading up to the establishment of the TRC, I interviewed members of NGOs representing
the Sami, Kven and Norwegian Finns. For further information on the use of truth commission
models, I interviewed the head of the Norwegian TRC and the head of the TRCs Secretariat.
Informants include both women and men of different ages. All interviews were conducted in
Norwegian. Due to Covid, all but three of the interviews were conducted on Zoom. Where
the informant gave consent, interviews have been recorded and professionally transcribed. Also
where the informant gave consent, their full name has been used; where the informant preferred
to remain anonymous, this has been respected. Only the author has so far had access to the
interview material. I have analysed the interviews by simply listening to sound files and reading
transcribed text, not using any particular software. Interviews have been used and stored accord-
ing to GDPR rules. The project adheres to the ethical guidelines developed by the Norwegian
National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NSD).
Applying a theoretical framework emphasizing agency and norm diffusion, the next part
zooms in on the background for the establishment of the Norwegian TRC, taking a closer look
at how norms and ideas travel, as well as the uptake and articulation of norms.
M OBILI ZIN G FOR A TRU TH COM M ISSION IN N ORWAY
To the best of my knowledge, state-sponsored truth commissions are never established on the
initiative of the state alone. Rather, their establishment is usually a response to demands raised
by concerned interest groups or citizens, and then a series of negotiations between the state
and civil society usually follows. The Norwegian case is no exception. To understand why the
demand for a truth commission in Norway was made and how this demand, after many twists
and turns, ultimately resulted in the establishment of a truth commission, it may be useful to
take a closer look at how, where and why Sami, and later Kven and Norwegian Finns, framed
their demands for a truth commission. As argued by Skaar and Wiebelhaus-Brahm:
The power of victims and civil society groups depends on their numbers, but also on their ability
to construct a historical narrative with an argument for an approach to TJ that is compelling.48
The call for a truth commission in Norway and the process leading to its establishment in
2018 was relatively short and swift. However, the idea of a truth commission had been circu-
lating in the Sami communities in Norway as well as in neighbouring Sweden and Finland for
47 Ibid., 11.
48 Skaar and Wiebelhaus-Brahm, supra n 42 at 140.12 • Skaar
some years.49 The next section uses process tracing to dig further into where the idea of a truth
commission came from, how it was received and what steps were taken from when the first seed
of a truth commission was planted until the commission was formally established by the Nor-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijtj/ijac027/7023533 by Bergen Global, CMI user on 14 February 2023
wegian Parliament. Who were the actors and what were the factors shaping the process leading
up to the parliamentary decision?
Articulating Demands for a Truth Commission in Norway: Some Details
Árja was the first political party in Norway to suggest that a commission be established to inves-
tigate the Norwegianization policy carried out by the Norwegian state. Árja, the third largest
Sami party in Norway, made this proposal in the Norwegian Sami Parliament in 2014. The per-
son launching the initiative was Láilá Susanne Vars, then head of Árja. In an interview with the
author, she explains how she had become exposed to the idea of a truth commission through
her international travels in connection with her training as a jurist and her international work
for indigenous human rights through the UN system.50 Vars’ engagement built on a longstand-
ing Sami from Norway’s active role in promoting indigenous rights internationally. Ole Henrik
Magga, a prominent Sami politician, co-founded the World Council of Indigenous Peoples in
1975 and was the first chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
(UNPFII) from 2002 to 2004. Norway was the very first signatory of the Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention in 1989 (an International Labour Organization Convention, also known
as ILO Convention 169 ILO). By 2014, indigenous rights were firmly on the global political
agenda as well as on the national Sami political agenda in Norway.
By contrast, although truth commissions were definitely a global phenomenon, most Nor-
wegians’ knowledge of truth commissions was limited to the South African TRC – a happening
far away in the global south, dealing with completely different kinds of struggles from those the
Sami held close at heart. This was to change when the Canadian TRC was established in 2008
and mandated to investigate abuses committed against indigenous children in federal residen-
tial schools. In an interview with the author, Vars recalls that she first thought of the possibility
of a commission to investigate historical wrongs committed by the Norwegian state against the
Sami around 2012, after becoming familiar with the work of the Canadian TRC during a trip to
Canada. The Canadian TRC was half-way through its work at this point, and Vars was enthused
after personal conversations with commissioner Chief Wilton Littlechild. Directly inspired by
these conversations, she brought the idea back to Norway and tabled her proposal for a truth
commission in Norway in the Sami Parliament in 2014. Initially, Vars proposed a commission
with a narrow mandate to investigate residential schools for indigenous children and their neg-
ative implications for Sami language and culture – very much along the lines of the Canadian
TRC. However, the time was not yet ripe for this kind of idea in Norway, and Vars’ proposal was
initially met with silence rather than enthusiasm in the Sami Parliament. Vars did not interpret
this silence as necessarily a negative reaction, though, but more as an expression of Sami par-
liamentarians not quite knowing what to think of it. After consulting with groups in the Sami
Parliament, in particular the Council of Elders, Vars became convinced that an investigative
commission was the way to go to deal with the long history of Norwegianization policies, and she
kept pushing for such a commission. In 2014, there was political room for negotiations between
a parliamentary minority government (headed by the main Sami party, the NSR) and the oppo-
sition party, Árja. Through horse-trading, Árja succeeded in securing an agreement on a new
section in the Sámi parliament budget for 2015, where the parliament supported the proposal of
49 Kuokkanen, supra n 28 at 294.
50 Personal interview, Láilá Susanne Vars, former head of Árja, currently Rector at Samisk høgskole (Sami University of Applied
Sciences), 21 March 2022 (on Zoom).You can also read
